The “Charlie Hebdo killings” in France had called for attention from all parts of the world. Undeniably, it is a tragic and disturbing incident that has thrown us out of our comfort zone.
There has been a myriad of responses, highlighting concerns of all sorts, tackling the reasoning to this crisis. Mostly, it has brought out the best and worst in everyone.
Nevertheless, the better known “sensitivities” have arose to be debated and analysed in a ruthless and unforgiving fashion, but in the end – it should contribute as to what lessons can be learnt to strive for improvements in society.
Dear Malaysians, the implications of Charlie Hebdo have brought about the importance of how we govern ourselves as a community – both on a national and international scale.
As a country that is fighting hard to achieve freedom, equality and balance, it is pivotal for us to see that there are a great many things we must come to terms with if we want to make change.
Freedom of religion is the most crucial aspect that is being discussed at the current moment. Terrorism today is based on the perversion of religion, questioning the very sanctity of the system.
Perhaps the indoctrination of principles via organised religion is not favourable in an era where nothing is above scrutiny and a resurfacing of postmodernist ideologies.
In fact, nothing should be above scrutiny and it is permissible to be “intellectually honest” to ourselves about the shaping of morality and work our way towards achieving a sort of common morality.
If we are still suppressing people’s own ideas of practising their religion and going about moral-policing against the wills of others – how are we supposed to dampen the tension that is built with it?
It merely results in an explosion of misguided and misconstrued actions, leaving an unforgivable scar on the rest of the world.
As we continue to permit the institutionalisation of faith, this lack of discussion space results in the rampant mushrooming of Islamophobia and its potential of being institutionalised as well.
Ali A. Rizvi’s, “An Open Letter to Moderate Muslims” in the Huffington Post highlights the desire to be “intellectually honest” – about “scripture inerrancy” being the stepping stone in curbing the stereotypical relationship between Islam and terrorism.
“But put yourself in the shoes of your non-Muslim audience. Is it really them linking Islam to terrorism? We are surrounded with images and videos of jihadists yelling "Allahu Akbar" and quoting passages from the Quran before beheading someone (usually a non-Muslim) – setting off an explosion – or rallying others to battle.
Who is really making this connection?
What would you do if this situation was reversed? What are non-Muslims supposed to think when even moderate Muslims like yourselves defend the very same words and book that these fundamentalists effortlessly quote as justification for killing them – as perfect and infallible?”
In this case, why do we give so much room for extremism in interpretations? There is a doubt as to how satisfying most people would feel than being coerced into going against personal beliefs.
However, it is beginning to extend beyond the “perfect and infallible” nature of religious scriptures and beckons us to take precedence of what is truly right over statement.
Honestly, it is a frightening prospect that the thing that we hold dear to us most can be shaken, but there is nothing to be feared if it upholds fairness and justice.
Suddenly, Charlie Hebdo makes us wonder if constraints were needed to be placed on the freedom of expression, or that we should alter our perspectives on it.
Within freedom of expression, there is freedom of criticism and speech that get jumbled and creates a potpourri of unpopular opinions, regardless.
We could go with the “if you don’t like it, you can ignore it” basis about everything, or “without the freedom to offend, (freedom of speech) ceases to exist”, as Salman Rushdie, author of the Satanic Verses said.
With that being noted, it brings us to the degree of satire that we can tolerate or digest. The concept of satire is rather simple – take anything and make a fool out of it.
In Malaysia, we are very familiar with satire, especially when it has to do with politics. I suppose, satire comes in all shapes, sizes and colours and so we, the audience choose to view whatever that appeals to our palate.
We are no strangers of persecution to free speech, since the Sedition Act has taken some of us to the courtroom. That is the one thing we must notice in this situation, while there are parts of the world that are perceived to have an excess to offend while here, there is a struggle to give more liberation to speak for the betterment of the country.
With great power, comes great responsibility. Satire may be to cause discomfort, provoke thought but with all this sensation created, it should serve some positive purpose for all of us.
Comics of unnecessarily crude, vulgar and discriminative depictions do not seem to serve to create advancements and innovation. To think that someone out there would have derived so much laughter from such works is a disturbing notion that causes one to revaluate the true state of human nature.
Political rallies that merely insult blatantly without giving us a real sense of thought about reality, but simply riles up violence in our spirits, does not do any good either.
Common courtesy and harmony ceases to exist when we choose to ignore each other’s emotions.
Therefore, it is of great significance to highlight the distortion of love and compassion in the world today. In times like this, I look back at Leo Tolstoy’s strong conviction that mankind was never meant to hurt one another, but the differentiation of political and spiritual ideologies causes us to believe that the only way for a community to function is when some restrain others.
The simple truth is that deep down inside, beyond all this alterations, lies a soul that yearns to help and love, not torture and kill.
“The dissemination of truth in a society is based on coercion was always hindered in one and the same manner, namely, those in power, feeling that the recognition of this truth would undermine their position, consciously or sometimes unconsciously perverted it by explanations and additions quite foreign to it, and also opposed by open violence…
…in public life all forms of violence – such as imprisonment, executions, and wars – might be used for the protection of the majority against a minority of evildoers, though such means were diametrically opposed to any vestige of love.
And though common sense indicated that if some men claim to decide who is to be subjected to violence of all kinds for the benefit of others, these men to whom violence is applied may, in turn, arrive at a similar conclusion with regard to those who have employed violence to them, and though the great religious teachers…
foreseeing such a perversion of the law of love, has constantly drawn attention to the one invariable condition of love (namely, the enduring of injuries, insults, and violence of all kinds without resisting evil by evil) people continued — regardless of all that leads man forward — to try to unite the incompatibles: the virtue of love, and what is opposed to love, namely, the restraining of evil by violence.
And such a teaching, despite its inner contradiction, was so firmly established that the very people who recognise love as a virtue accept as lawful at the same time an order of life based on violence and allowing men not merely to torture but even to kill one another.”
I supposed the greatest fear that comes with voicing out, is mostly to be labelled as something we may not be, or to be judged as a hypocrite. Then again, everything in this universe exists as a paradox. It is an innate part of nature that keeps everything infinitely undiscoverable. It is alright to call out on our hypocritical double standards, but it is not alright to allow it to do injustice and create a disruption of peace.
In the midst of the chaos, lies the realisation of how we can learn from Charlie Hebdo and face these issues differently and in a better light.
Maybe things would not be the way they are today, if we shed more light on goodness. We live in an age where we tend to sensationalise everything that thugs at our heart strings, but does not compel us into making positive change and propagate good intentions.
As Malaysians, racial and religious harmony has screamed into unison with our culture. Its strength acts as the secret ingredient to handling the crisis we are currently faced with.
We are peace lovers, and we only take appropriate action when it is necessary and I have faith that the spirit of our fight for a better Malaysia is on the right path, as long as we do not reduce ourselves to mere, animalistic violence as an answer.
In no time, our goals will be successfully achieved and we will show the rest of the world that peace is the best way to respond to wrongdoings and that love can actually save the day. – January 11, 2015.
By Arutz Sheva
